Category Archives: SECTIONS

A Biography of Lilith

“A Biography of Lilith”
16mm Color Sound 1997 35min.

In a lively mix of off-beat narrative, collage and memoir, A Biography of Lilith updates the creation myth by telling the story of the first woman and for some, the first feminist. Lilith’s betrayal by Adam in Eden and subsequent vow of revenge is recast as a modern tale with present-day Lilith (Cherie Wallace) musing on a life that has included giving up a baby for adoption and work as a bar dancer. Interweaving mystical texts from Jewish folklore with interviews, music and poetry, Sachs reclaims this cabalistic parable to frame her own role as a mother. With music by Pamela Z and Charming Hostess (Jewlia Eisenberg and Carla Kielstadt).

Partially supported by a finishing fund grant from the Experimental Television Center, as a project of the New York State Council on the Arts.

“The true story of this not so mythical, mythic first female. Sachs’ film conveys the real experience — bloody and poetic — of Lilith alive and now in every woman. Bravo! A film felt, imagined, and informed by life.” – Barbara Black Koltuv, Ph. D. Clinical Psychologist, Jungian Analyst, and Author of The Book of Lilith

“Sachs’ art for fusing documentary and experimental narrative is unquestionably enormous. In this new film, her combination of an interview with a friend, the myth of Lilith and beauteous images of things like jelly fish (which float like iridescent breasts on screen) culminates in stunning cinema.” Molly Hankwitz, Art Papers

Screenings: Pacific Film Archive, Berkeley, CA; San Francisco Cinematheque; Women in the Director’s Chair Film Festival, Chicago; Ann Arbor Film Festival; Charlotee Film Fest (prize) Onion City Film Festival, Chicago; Humboldt Film Festival; Big Muddy Film Festival; Anthology Film Archive, NY; Fordham University; University of Maryland; California College of Arts and Crafts; Maryland Institute of Art; University of South Florida; Millennium Film Workshop, NY; Madcat Women’s Film Festival

Prizes: NY Film Expo; Black Maria; New York Women’s Film Festival

Selected by Mehdi Jahan on Desist Film’s Best of 2021 List.

For inquiries about rentals or purchases please contact Canyon Cinema or the Film-makers’ Cooperative. And for international bookings, please contact Kino Rebelde.

Interview in the San Francisco Bay Guardian

Lynne Sachs: An American Original
1993

By Tom Erikson

“I just tumbled into filmmaking,” Lynne Sachs admits. “It made so much sense to me. It gave me a chance to pull in poetry, looking at trees, listening to the sounds of grasshoppers, cars, and babies. The words go with reflections on politics to parables. And all of it can fall into this vessel that’s a film I might make. Film is completely full of possibilities.”

A bicoastal artist and teacher, Lynne Sachs is presently teaching film at Rutgers University while in process with her fourth short feature, A Biography of Lilith. Last week she participated in The Roxie Cinema’s Madcap Women’s Film and Video Festival, screening two early 1990s works, The House of Science and Which Way is East, as well as excerpts from Lilith. The new film combines narrative, documentary, and experimental techniques to tell the story of Adam’s first partner, who was thrown out of the garden of Eden for, as Sachs puts it, “wanting to be on top in sex.”

“Lilith has been demonized throughout the history of Jewish and Middle Eastern culture,” Sachs explains. “She is pretty much absent from the Bible, except for a cameo appearance as a minor demon in the Book of Isiah, but she is a character that has moved through Jewish mysticism for centuries. The Cabala discusses her. And she turns up as a character on the TV show Cheers. For all different reasons people feel connected to Lilith.”

At first, Sachs was having difficulty capturing on film the sequences that would convey her main character’s story. The experienced actress cast in the role “had not lived a Lilith life,” Sachs discovered, so she was recast as Eve and a New York stripper was hired. The woman, although not trained as an actress, inhabited the role so perfectly that Sachs was inspired to film her in a series of documentary style interviews that greatly expand the themes of the piece. Poetry and music have also been included – personal poems by the director, songs of the East Bay a cappella trio Charming Hostess, and music by San Francisco composer Pamela Z, for instance. All of this – combined with a running narrative of Sachs’ own reactions to the emotional complications of her two pregnancies, and filmed sonograms and footage of the birth of her first child, Maya – will make for an extremely affecting movie.

“Every film I’ve made has involved a total immersion in a subject,” Sachs explains. “That’s why they take so long. I have done an incredible amount of research for Lilith because I want it to be not only about the most personal things, but also about aspects of life that are out there in the world that I have no knowledge of. So the film explores certain aspects of Judaism, while it has also been about accepting the precariousness of being a mother and an artist.”

“A film goes with you wherever you go,” Sachs concludes. “It’s similar to how some people want religion to be. It can be both a solace and a place of incredible emotional controversy. You can’t put you finger on it. Its about a way of being. You live inside it.”

Review of Which Way is East in San Jose Mercury News

San Jose Mercury News | Friday, April 15, 1994

Vietnamese film by sisters brings worlds together

by T.T. Nhu

Lynne and Dana Sachs, two sisters from San Francisco by way of Tennessee, Connecticut, Rhode Island and other places, traveled to Vietnam in 1992 to look for the Vietnamese-American connection.

Dana, a writer, had been living in Vietnam on and off for a couple of years.

Lynne, a filmmaker and professor of film at Califonia College of Arts and Crafts in Oakland, took 40 minutes worth of film in her backpack and returned with a remarkable 33-minute meditation entitled “Facing Vietnam: Which Way Is East,” which will be shown at the Cinématheque of the San Francisco Art Institute on Sunday at 7:30 p.m.

“The fact I was an American talking to Vietnamese was really powerful,” said Dana, explaining the connection between herself and the people of that country. “It was as if we were siblings who had been separated for a long time. We had so much to talk about, so much to catch up with. We had to get everything on the table.”

Dana speaks good Vietnamese and so acts as her sister’s interlocutor. Dana’s grasp of Vietnamese culture and observations is disarming. This is from a conversation in the film that Dana has in Vietnamese about her sister’s marital status, a burning question that is almost always among the first adressed to a Vietnamese woman:

Q: (A Vietnamese) How old is your sister?

A: (Dana) Thirty-one.

Q: Is she married?

A: No.

Q: Thirty-one and she’s still single! Why do American women get married so late?

A: As Ho Chi Minh said: “There’s nothing more precious that independence and freedom.”

In the film the sisters travel the length and breadth of the country, stopping in my hometown. Hu, where the deep stillness of the place is captured. In many ways, the images are like impressionistic paintings – Van Gogh going wild in the bamboo groves.

The disjointedness captured in the film reflects what it feels like to arrive in a faraway country – new sights and sounds and, in this case, paralyzing heat. But the film also has a sense of intimacy.

In one scene the sisters work through feelings of guilt about a war they had nothing to do with. Greeted by a one-legged man at a pagoda who tells Dana that he’d like to go to America where business is good, she puts her hands together in a gesture of prayer and apologizes to him. He tells her it doesn’t matter, “like we’re talkin about a mistake I made years ago that he’s ling since forgotten.”

Still Hoa, a friend to the filmmakers, has a piercing insight about a country she has never seen. “I think I understand homelessness…but I don’t understand why your government spends so much money trying to find the bodies of soldiers that they know are dead when so many other soldiers are still alive and sleeping on the streets right there in America.”

With so many Vietnamese living in America, Lynne says, the relationship bewteen Americans and Vietnamese isn’t at all haphazard.

“It was the flip side of a shard history with the same horizon and different high and low marks, Lynne says. “We come from different sides of he Pacific, but share the same ocean.”

This half-hour movie will be shown with “How to Behave,” a provocative video by Tran Van Thuy portraying life in a society that can no longer differentiate between hope, humanitarianism and greed.

These are short films that seem long in the best sense of the word.

Which Way is East: Notebooks from Vietnam

Note: To watch the full film, click here or scroll to the bottom of this page.

by Lynne Sachs in Collaboration with Dana Sachs
33 min.

“A frog that sits at the bottom of a well thinks that the
whole sky is only as big as the lid of a pot.”

In 1994, two American sisters – a filmmaker and a writer — travel from Ho Chi Minh City to Hanoi. Together, they attempt to make a candid cinema portrait of the country they witness. Their conversations with Vietnamese strangers and friends reveal to them the flip side of a shared history. Lynne and Dana Sachs’ travel diary revels in the sounds, proverbs, and images of Vietnamese daily life. Both a culture clash and an historic inquiry, their film comes together with the warmth of a quilt, weaving together stories of people the sisters met with their own childhood memories of the war on TV.

When two American sisters travel north from Ho Chi Minh City to Hanoi, conversations with Vietnamese strangers and friends reveal to them the flip side of a shared history. Lynne and Dana Sachs’ travel diary of their trip to Vietnam is a collection of tourism, city life, culture clash, and historic inquiry that’s put together with the warmth of a quilt. “Which Way Is East” starts as a road trip and flowers into a political discourse. It combines Vietnamese parables, history and memories of the people the sisters met, as well as their own childhood memories of the war on TV. To Americans for whom “Vietnam” ended in 1975, “Which Way Is East” is a reminder that Vietnam is a country, not a war. The film has a combination of qualities: compassion, acute observational skills, an understanding of history’s scope, and a critical ability to discern what’s missing from the textbooks and TV news.
from The Independent Film and Video Monthly, Susan Gerhard

“Captures the Vietnam experience with comprehension and compassion, squeezing a vast and incredible country into an intriguing film.”
Portland Tonic Magazine

“The sound track is layered with the cacophony of bustling city streets, the chirps of cicadas and gentle rustles of trees in the countryside, and the visuals, devoid of travelogue clichés, are a collage of pictorial snippets taken from unusual vantage points…. What comes through is such a strong sense of the place you can almost smell it.”
The Chicago Reader

“It’s really a magnificent film about translation, with the play of light and shadow mirroring the movement between language, cultures, and moments in time. It brought back memories of my own years in east Asia, too. The light was exactly the same!”
Sam Diiorio

“Before Sachs experienced her epiphany, she made Which Way is East (1994), an arresting, painterly exploration of Vietnam. As one of the first American filmmakers granted permission to shoot in Vietnam, Sachs had the weight of responsibility and expectation on her shoulders. Despite this, the film has a sense of lightness and freedom, especially in its aesthetic and aural approach: it begins with a stilted photographic trajectory, literally rendering the moving image as a series of broad brush strokes, while the almost endlessness of the cicadas’ chirrup pitch moves the image along, though not necessarily forward. It is a sensory introduction, rather than a history lesson, and here Sachs’ work is at its most successful, inviting us, as viewers and listeners to be in this depiction of Vietnam, not to look at or hear a presentation of it. Eventually, Sachs and her camera will arrive somewhere static, she will then switch to a show and tell mode, which is informative but less awesome. She flits between the two with relative ease for the remainder of the film, letting her observations and those of her sister, Dana, interpolate the experience. It is as much about making her own memories as it is the chasing of those left behind by others. Her sister’s remarks are among the most revelatory, “I hate the camera,” she muses, “The world feels too wide for the lens and if I try to frame it, I only cut it up.” Holding a camera and being a filmmaker are not one and the same, “Lynne sees it through the eyes of its lens,” she continues, “It’s as if she understands Vietnam better when she looks at it through the lens of her camera.” For Sachs, the practice has always been the pursuit. She instinctively knew, even before it occurred to her laterally, to share the filmmaking in order to make it more accessible, more honest and more like the world it hopes to offer. It may have taken her another almost twenty years to fully understand and break with the idea of documentary as an act or approach, but there is a silver lining of melancholia inside Which Way is East? It makes me wonder if 1) she already knew and 2) if the practice, though expressive and creative as an outlet is also overwhelming, as there is some sadness here.”
Ubiquarian: “The Process is the Practice: Prolific and poetic, experimental and documentary filmmaker, Lynne Sachs, lights up this year’s online edition of Sheffield Doc” by Tara Judah, June 21, 2020
http://ubiquarian.net/2020/06/the-process-is-the-practice/

Awards:
Atlanta Film Festival, Grand Jury Prize; New York Film Expo, Best Documentary; Black Maria Film Fest, Director’s Citation; Big Muddy Film Festival, Honorable Mention.

Screenings:
Sundance Film Festival; Museum of Modern Art, New York; San Francisco Cinematheque; “Arsenal” Film Festival, Riga, Latvia; Pacific Film Archive; Mill Valley Film Festival; San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival; Whitney Museum of American Art; Sheffield Doc/Fest 2020; Criterion Channel Artist Focus; Museum of the Moving Image; Metrograph Theater, NYC 2021.

Criterion Channel streaming premiere with 7 other films, Oct. 2021.

Library Collections:
Amherst College; Arizona State University; University of California, Berkeley and Irvine; Duke University; Hong Kong University of Science; New York University; New York Public Library; Penn State; Rutgers University; University of Iowa; Minneapolis Public Library; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; University of Virginia; Northwestern; Seattle Public Library

Distribution:
For inquiries about rentals or purchases please contact Canyon Cinema, the Film-makers’ Cooperative, or Icarus Films. And for international bookings, please contact Kino Rebelde.

Interview in the Independent Film and Video Monthly

Experimental Filmmaker Lynne Sachs
The Independent Film and Video Monthly
March, 1994

By Susan Gerhard

Lynne Sachs calls her latest film, Which Way is East?. A “work-in-process.” She uses the phrase to describe those of her experimental documentaries that evolve over time. This particular one started as a road trip and flowered into a political discourse: It’s a half-hour travel diary of her trip to Vietnam – a collection of tourism, city life, culture clash, and historic inquiry that’s put together with the warmth of a quilt.

That warmth is no accident. For Sachs, film is folk art. Pieces are crafted much as they’re conceptualized. Her work is hands-on everything, from the film itself to the machines she reshapes it on. “I was welding electronics on this machine one hour ago,” Sachs notes casually as we settle in to watch Which Way Is East? on a portable six-plate flatbed. She later describes the optical printer – the machine she uses to double-expose and linger over particular frames – like it’s a family heirloom. “An optical printer is sort of from that era of the sewing machine. You hear every single stitch.”

Sachs sees film as a mutable thing, as her phrase “film-in-process” indicates. She’s turned two of her films into installations: The House of Science: A Museum of False Facts (1991), in which she torches a doll house and the anti-feminist myths contained inside it, metamorphosed into a three-dimensional exhibit at Artists’ Television Access in 1991. And work-in-process States of UnBelonging turned up as an installation in 1992 at Buffalo’s Hallwalls Center for the Arts.

Like most of Sachs’ films, Which Way Is East? is personal. In 1992 Sachs slipped her Bolex camera into her backpack and went to visit her sister in Vietnam. There she shot 40 minutes of film, much of it a few frames at a time out the window of a room where, due to illness, she was confined to her bed. When she returned to the United States, she put together a 30-minute film that combines Vietnamese parables, history, and memories of the Vietnamese people she met, as well as her own childhood memories of the TV war.

In the film, Sachs recalls visiting Vietnam’s Museum of War Atrocities. While standing in the American Wing, she looks across the street and notices that another part of the museum is closed. Her sister explains that Vietnam’s relations with China are good, so there are no visiting hours for viewing China’s war atrocities.

To Americans for whom “Vietnam” ended in 1975, Which Way Is East? is a reminder that Vietnam is a country, not a war. The film has a combination of qualities that make Sachs well admired among Bay Area experimental filmmakers: compassion, acute observational skills, an understanding of history’s scope, and a critical ability to discern what’s missing from the textbooks and TV news.

A 1979 graduate of Brown University, Sachs traded her history degree for a Bolex camera. She moved to San Francisco in 1985, got a Masters in Cinema from San Francisco State, and earned an MFA from the San Francisco Art Institute. Since then, she’s worked her way from office temp and sound technician to filmmaker and lecturer, and has exhibited in festivals ranging from Atlanta to Oberhausen.

Which Way Is East? continues a practice she began with he 1989 project, Sermons and Sacred Pictures. This half-hour film depicts the life of Reverend L.O. Taylor, a Memphis preacher and filmmaker who, in the 1920s, gave witness to the idea that film, as a medium of self-representation, could affect people. He made and exhibited films of his congregations’ baptisms and daily lives.

“[Taylor] preserved something; [he used] that relationship of being an artist to bring something back to the place,” says Sachs, who has a similar modus operandi. She showed Taylor’s films to a congregation in San Francisco when she was collecting sounds from the church for Sermons and Sacred Pictures. The churchgoers recognized scenes from Taylor’s films: aunts, uncles, places. It brought their South back to them.

Making Which Way s East?, she made another connection – this time across continents. Sachs asked a number of Vietnamese Americans to help her decipher parables and read the stories she gathered from conversations in Vietnam for the film’s narration. In the process, many recognized their own stories. Sometimes, Sachs gets a personal invitation to dinner when the day’s work is done.

Sachs’ populism is not a hobby. In her daily double-life, she’s a teacher. She’s constantly impressed by the visions and skills of first-time film and videomakers in her courses at the California College of Arts and Crafts in Oakland. She’s also pleased to be able to watch her favorite films (works by former San Franciscan Bruce Conner, for one) again and again – and get paid for it. But it’s in the six months between teaching gigs when the real work gets done; when she descends into her studio and concentrates, uninterrupted, on her film craft.

“I like the term ‘filmmaker,’” she told the San Francisco Bay Guardian, “because it’s like the word homemaker,” Sachs has reinvented that word in the same way she reinvents film.

Susan Gerhard

Susan Gerhard is a film critic for the SF Bay Guardian.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian / Goldies 1993

“I am not a movie buff,” Lynne Sachs explains over tapas and Anchor Steam at Zanzibar near her home in the Mission. In an age of Quentin Tarantinos and “independent” filmmakers whose life experiences extend only as far as the local video store, it’s refreshing to hear that kind of self-description. Sachs isn’t interested in repackaging what’s already been consumed.

The nature of Sachs’ work. From Still Life with Woman and Four Objects (1986) to The House of Science: A Museum of False Facts (1991), is something like “nurture.” Her films gestate, accumulate a language and a life of their own. By the time they emerge into the world for the big smack, they have a reason to be.

“I like the term filmmaker because it’s like the word homemaker.” Sachs, it turns out, became the former. A graduate of Brown University in 1979, in the era of Christine Vachon, Todd Haynes, and semiotics, Sachs would trade in her history degree for a Bolex camera. She moved to San Francisco in 1985 and took graduate courses at S.F. State and the S.F. Art Institute, where she accumulated influences and mentors like Trinh T. Minh-ha and Gunvor Nelson.

Like those filmmakers, Sachs is both craftswoman and experimental artist. She likes the gadgetry– “an optical printer is sort of from the era of the sewing machine; you hear every single stitch” – but her films don’t so much occupy the common theoretical spaces as create new ones.

In the HOuse of Science, a film that began as an installation at Artists’ Television Access, Sachs torches a doll house and the social manipulations it contained– the pathologizing of female sexuality, medical control over the female body. An earlier film, Sermons and Sacred Pictures (1989) overturned the idea of “the gaze” in a similarly brave manner. In it, she explained– and gave broader context to – the world of Memphis’ Rev. Taylor, a man who preached through film, making movies for his congregations. She used “found politics” as well as “found footage” and rewrote a piece of film history.

“He [Taylor] preserved something, [he used] tjay relationship of being an artist to bring something back to the place.” Sachs, who grew up in Memphis and now teaches courses at California College of Arts and Crafts.

Susan Gernard

“IRIS-IN” – Karen Rester and Lynne Sachs in conversation (1992)

I RIS-IN

Berkeley Undergraduate Film Association Newsletter

Nov/Dec 1992

Interview with L. Sachs, filmmaker and visiting instructor at U.C. Berkeley by Karen Rester

LS: …when I was about 18, I had a Summer job at a place called the Center For Southern Folklore stuffing envelopes for a fund- raising campaign. There were these quilts all over the place and potters walking in and out and musicians fromYazoo City, Mississippi or wherever. Actually, they had just made a film called Four Women Artists; it was about a quilt maker, a painter, a needlepoint artist,and someone else. I thought, “This is incredible this …way of discovering the South.” I didn’t really like living in the South because I didn’t really like Memphis at the time and I thought, “Ob, there are greater horizons somewhere else.” But I liked this sort of side of the South that was not so easily accessible and that was so much about secrets and pasts and the ways that people made things out of nothing, and so I hung out there for longer. They had just acquired the whole film, photography, and sound recording collection of Reverend L.O. Taylor that year; he had died in 1977. The Center started interviewing people whose pictures were in the photographs and I had a job transcribing the sound recordings that he’d made on 78 rpm discs. He was a preacher who also made films in the 1930’s and 40’s. I was astounded at this way that be interacted with the community. We took the films around to churches that summer and then I went away to college. I remembered what I had done that summer but I didn’t really think that this had a big impact on me. I had always been involved in the arts and I kept doing paintings and poetry and things like that but I also got really involved with history; I was a history major in college. At least years later I discovered that film was a way to draw on my art interests and my interests in things like these people that I’d met or heard of back then. Film was also a way to take me somewhere as ~ different person, to allow me to integrate these experiences into things that I was doing in a different way than painting or poetry was. I still love that way of working and it is still part of the way I work but film also gives me the chance to ask lots of questions, or to go back to Memphis ten years later with a different kind of desire, to discover… I think I’m much more curious about the world than I was then (laughs) and about not just the world but what was right next to me. So that was kind of how I first got interested in film.

House of Science, Personal Films and Other Dangerous Substances

KR: YOu don’t consider yourself exclusively a filmmaker in the sense that you often incorporate your own collages, sculptures, and poetry into your films.

LS: Yes, the last film I did, House of Science, and the one I’m working on now were kind of installations, sculpture pieces at first. The new film is tentatively called States of Unbelonging. I did a sculpture piece that allowed me to work with all these different materials…but actually a lot of it was film. I took film frames and put them into handmade slides, if you can imagine this, with dirt and feathers, all different things, and then blew them up; they’re really beautiful. [The film] is about letting the material speak to me because I’m not that good at sitting down and writing out a script. I like to be open to thoughts. I did say to myself this time, “I’m going to do all the production and then all the post-production,” but I just can’t work that way. I’m awed by people who can. With House of Science, I wrote the end when I was finishing the film. The end was the end.

KS: House of Science has often been interpreted as addressing the notion of women as constructs, that is constructed by institutions, by Science, by Art. Was this your original premise for the film?

LS: It just happened that I made those collages [which seem to illustrate this concept]… Actually I was maybe embarrassed and maybe just confused about things that I did and didn’t know about my body. I wouldn’t say that I was bitter towards Science, or maybe I was a little bit, but Science is a big word and it has more to do with being awkward because you don’t have the tools. And I didn’t have the sort of language to know even bow to talk about certain kinds of physical experiences. I felt so especially as a young person. I made the film, I think, when I got to the point where I did feel more comfortable. I could look at that uncomfortableness of the younger period and say, “I’ve changed a little bit. Now I feel that I can make something that’s about that.”

KR: It was really a personal experience for you…

LS: Yes.

KR:…and I guess this leads into the question of “personal films” and why especially women filmmakers feel compelled to make them. With House of Science did you envision making a “personal film” – this being a label that has been applied to filmmakers like Chick Strand and Linda Tadic. The term “personal film” seems to refer to an opening up on the filmmaker’s part; perhaps the desire as bell hooks has put it, to move “from margin to center” as a woman. TO open yourself up so fully to the spectator that they can’t ignore you. You’re exposing yourself, you’re communicating to other women, and at the same time you’re creating filmic art.

LS:

I think it was wanting to…feeling that there was such a thing as a community of women and such a thing as working with a language that was so personal that it communicated first to women on one level and then to men on another level. I never wanted it to be exclusive at all. But I do think that men and women read differently…their schematic is different because we walk through the forest and we look at the stars and somehow see them a little bit differently, and so I wanted to delve into that I wasn’t looking at the language I developed for this film and saying “this is specifically female.” I have this section of the text which talks about touching your breasts and I wanted it to allude to the touching of your breasts when you’re looking for bumps, cancerous bumps as we’re supposed to do, and I think it’s really great if women do it and think “I’m taking responsibility for myself. I had a friend who was dying of cancer at the time that I wrote that. But as I was writing it, the writing made me see that I was also talking about being able to touch your body. Interestingly enough several men saw this section in a very different way. You know there’s this thing about masturbation and men: “of course every man does “. But it’s not very celebrated for women at all, whether you’re talking about pop culture or even from the most intimate of diaries — looking out or coming from within. (pause) Modern mythology has created this rite of passage for men and not for women. I wanted to say that touching your body if you’re talking about masturbation is like part of this change, a coming into being autonomous. So with that one section I’m always curious how people read it and women often see it as talking about checking your breasts for bumps while men seem to interpret this more sexually. I’m thrilled by this ambiguity.

KR: And also the title itself, House of Science, as well as the opening scene in which the woman talks about her first trip to the gynecologist, seem to refer to the body of woman as being experimented upon.

LS: And that you need a guide.

KR: And that you need to be told how to look at your body.

LS: Yes. And so I didn’t want there to be the need for a guide whether you’re talking about masturbation or about the preservation of your existence. But it’s interesting to see how people who’ve lived in the world in different ways look at my film. There are a couple of places that people have read as being about AIDS. I never even knew that that was in the film, but the way that I wrote about liquids and bow you struggle to keep them in… People have told me that it would be just as accurate for someone with a disease.

Trinh, Irigaray, and Sacred Pictures

KR: You’ve said that Luce Irigaray and Trinh Minh-Ha have been influential in your work and writings. How so?

LS: When I first met Minh-Ha I was working on my documentary film, Sermons and Sacred Pictures. There’s a certain kind of distance she has in her work as in she doesn’t try to dominate a situation but she tries to let it unravel. This is also reflected in] the way that she uses different voices so that many voices come together to create a sense of a whole; there’s not a hierarchy. I was really intrigued by that. And then she wrote an article called “Ear Over Eye” which I always loved. It’s really specifically about film; about letting there be silences. In Sermons and Sacred Pictures, I wouldn’t necessarily say I had silences but I had these places – black sections that were like visual silences. I wanted them to fragment the film and it frustrates some people. I wanted to say, “This is not a completely whole picture of a person,” because I didn’t even know the person. I can only say what I gleaned from listening to people, and from working with bis [Reverend Taylor’s] materials; from taking myself back there and from being from there originally. I didn’t want to make a film that recreated something I would be projecting on.
…There’s another thing that I remember hearing Minh-Ha say which had to do with the ways of shooting; that the zoom lens gives you so much power and doesn’t bring your body into [it]…

KR: You remain the outsider, observing from a distance.

LS: Yes, and I wanted to interact with the people that I was talking to in a very physical way…to be more present and more visible and not outside the radius of someone’s gaze. …There is a kind of intimacy that is instinctual. In a documentary you have to be more participatory as well as more knowledgeable about the potential of your equipment.

KR: But in Sacred Pictures we never see the people you are interviewing. Their voices are never presented as “actual sound” and this seems to create a distance.

LS: Well I did that whole film, I shot it and recorded it, petty much by myself. I was talking to people that were just meeting me and they were at first kind of uncomfortable but then they really opened up. I felt like not having a camera there made them feel more at ease. I just recorded it on tape; there is no synch-sound in that at all. This is a big issue that I still have a question about. I couldn’t sit here and say, “This is my ethic. The reason I didn’t have their faces and their voices at the same time was this and this.” Part of it was economic, a big part; part of it was that I wanted to be as close to them as possible and not to be distracted by cameras and lights and things like that. I just walked all over-the neighborhood that Reverend Taylor had lived in with my camera. I saw neighborhoods I didn’t even know existed, just beautiful neighborhoods and parks …it was like a new city… and I wanted to do it by myself. To use a crew would have been really different. So, that was the film that I was able to make on my own. When I finished it some people, mostly other-white filmmakers, said, “Don’t you feel strange that you went into this community” as if they would be very assaulted that way. I think, and I heard
this from a Black professor at Howard, that it would have been condescending if I had decided nott to make it because I was white; he was really glad that I had. Not to say, “Oh, you understand,” but not to let those barriers stop you right away. I know so much more about the black filmmaking community from making this film.

***

KR: Talk about Irigaray

LS: Well I was part of a women’s reading group about five years ago with Peggy Ahwessh and Jennifer Montgomery; a lot of filmmakers who were here now don’t live here anymore. But we were all reading Lacan for the first time and [continuing to] read feminist theorists [such as lrigaray and Helene Cixous]. None of us had studied that in college so it was completely coming from what we wanted to bite into, which to me is exciting; it wasn’t passed down from some authority figure. So we would meet at somebody’s house and each of us brought a book… It was very very serious and we all felt terribly guilty if we didn’t read what we were supposed to read. I think it affected all of our work quite a lot. You asked about responsibility- I felt like I had to [incorporate what we had been reading into House of Science], partly because I was in this milieu, mentally connected to a group and grappling with issues about the identity and the experience of being a woman. But also I was so stimulated by lrigaray. It colored the way I was writing, just how she looks at the body in this really visual way. She’s not talking about art at all but..she sort of theorizes physical things; the body becomes all these different faces of mirrors so that your mind is like a mirror onto your body and you learn about a certain kind of philosophy that comes from – people say lack but she doesn’t use that word – that comes from a body that contains holes, or a body that welcomes them…And even if it was essentialist it didn’t bother me, it intrigued me. It was sort of lauding something that I’d always felt but that I hadn’t been able to embrace somehow intellectually. I didn’t even realize how much she had influenced me until I had a show in Los Angeles soon after I had finished House of Science . A woman raised her hand and asked, “So, when did you start reading Irigaray?”

On Lifting Belly

I love Gertrude Stein now. I was reading Gertrude Stein when I was making that film (House of Science). I knew that she was going to figure into it. I liked the way she played with words… sort of non-linear but still driven by some kind of illusions, but not metaphoric because I’m always fascinated by metaphor and I like that she wasn’t, that she worked with other kinds of linguistic plays, tropes. I was reading her poetry one day in bed and I started reading it out loud and it was completely different…it was like “Ahh” that’s what it is, it’s supposed to be out loud. And so I had the poem and I loved that it was about lifting belly, like about weight or about flesh or about…just that word lifting belly sounds really fantastic; it’s very female. So I thought that I’d ask my friend who has a 16 year old daughter to read it. Well the daughter could not stand it because it was too haphazard for her. You see, she was coming to an understanding of a rational way of speaking, but Stein was pulling her back to some way of speaking that is extremely creative but deceptively childlike. The daughter wanted desperately to get into adult life and adult language and it made her really uncomfortable to read that whereas her mother loved it, and so we just decided to read sort of as a round together; I decided to leave in the part where we mess up. So, that’s how that happened.

Film as Weapon

KR: What does this tendency in women avant-garde/experimental filmmakers to make personal films mean to you?

LS: I would never say that most women want to make personal films. I think there are many women who would love to make impersonal films but who only want to see their name slapped alongside the title “director” or “producer”. I see myself as a filmmaker, and maybe that term harkens back to a much older term, one that we now tend to shiver at the thought of: homemaker. But what I like about it is the non-hierarchical position it takes. This kind of personal work comes from a place that is very critical, often angry but presumably grounded in an artist’s experience and vision. In its honesty it is a kind of filmic expression that can be subversive and I think expressive.

KR: Do you see you work as a weapon?

LS: If in any way I were to think of myself as a weapon it would be as a weapon against stagnated thinking. I want to trigger my audience into thinking differently and independently.

Wide Angle Vol. 14: Feminist Polemics through Film Poetry by Marilyn Fabe / The House of Science

Wide Angle Volume 14, published in 1992. The House of Science: Museum of False Facts / Feminist Polemics through Film Poetry by Marilyn Fabe.

In The House of Science:A Museum of False Facts, Lynne Sachs exposes the edifice of scientific “facts” with which the male-dominated disciplines of science and medicine have constructed an image of what a woman is. Through-out the 30-minute film, Sachs traces the unfortunate interface between women and science, a terrain in which men are supposed to have all the knowledge, defining and mapping out women as their territory, while women are alienated from their own bodies.

This synopsis of the film’s thesis doesn’t begin to convey the wit, complexity and visual brilliance with which Sachs approaches her subject. Indeed, I would argue that she achieves in this film what Sergei Eisenstein sought through intellectual montage: “to restore to the intellectual process its fire and passion … to give back to emasculated theoretical formulas the rich exuberance of life-felt forms.” Through associative montage, superimposed collage, and sound in counterpoint to image, she launches an attack on the presumed objectivity of western science, and exposes the limitations of verbal language in expressing “the truth.” Sachs does this by replacing the language of logic and science with a complex film poetry. The House of Science is a passionate feminist film that makes its point through poetry rather than polemics.

Even as Sachs depicts the house of science into which women have been locked, she subtly and subversively dismantles it-or, in a metaphor more appropriate to the film’s denouement, burns it down. The manner in which the first sequence works suggests the structure of the film as a whole. Before the titles appear, Sachs counterpoints found footage of a man in a white jacket-a Doctor with a capital 0-escorting a woman into a glass booth. This image is accompanied by a voiceover of a woman describ- ing the cold, perfunctory manner in which she was treated during her pregnancy by her gynecologist. Here the disparate sound and image tracks uncannily mesh, the glass booth becoming a symbol of the sterile House of Sci- ence in which women have been enclosed, objectified and observed. At the same time, the voice of the woman reflecting on her pregnancy reminds us that everyone’s original dwelling is the woman’s body. In a flash of recognition an idea bursts forth: because men come from a mysterious house (the womb), they have a compulsive

need to put women back into one (the doctor leading the woman into the glass booth). The sadistic implications of this are played out associatively when the same doctor detonates a fuse which causes a model of a house to burst into flames. Sachs adds her own heat (her anger) to this image by tinting the black and white image of the burning house with flashes of orange.

This foregrounding of the filmmaker’s feelings, superim- posed in color on the black and white image, resonates suggestively with the pregnant woman’s description of her gynecologist: “He always struck me as short, cold and with glasses and he may not look like that at all.” At issue here is the questioning of any kind of objective reality. Unlike the authoritarian certainty with which men speak throughout the film, this woman acknowledges how feelings filter our perceptions of reality.

Sachs exposes the hidden feeling behind the language of science by quoting one Lombroso, a 19th century “expert” on criminality in women, who pontificates on the “irrefutable physical signs of a born thief” in a nine-year- old girl. The ignorance, prejudice and insanity of Lombrasso’s words, which appear irr subtitles, are rendered even more ridiculous because they are read on the soundtrack by a female child who mangles the text by stumbling over the pronunciation of the words. On the image track is an exuberant nine-year-old girl in a Batman costume, a superhero in her resistance to the misogynist science of men. The image of the little girl changes to one of a dancing woman, who, unlike the child, is not free but contained in a crudely chalk-drawn frame of a house, reminding us of how adult women lose the liberty of girlhood only to be confined in the constrictive House of Science.

Sachs places frames around men as well, play- fully asserting the power of the woman artist to turn the tables. In one instance a man stands before a picture frame lecturing on anatomy. As he discusses the framework of the body, he himself appears in a frame, and the prurience underlying his pompous abstractions is exposed when the picture in the frame within a frame turns into a nude woman.

As the film progresses, Sachs increasingly presents images of women defining themselves. Three adult women, who earlier had dutifully mouthed Lombrasso’s certainty that female thieves and “above all prostitutes” have a cranial capacity inferior to that of “moral women,” begin to speak for themselves. For example, a woman art critic offers insight into why the pubic hair was removed from Renaissance representations of Venuses: ”fhe more the visual image can be disarmed the better the male artist feels.” And the filmmaker’s journal entry expresses the exhilaration and power of a woman with a speculum looking into herself.

Yet Sachs offers no smug sense of victory for women. The latter images in the film, like those at the beginning, are riddled with ambiguity. The woman with the speculum lives in dread of the cancer she might find now that she has the power to examine herself. And little girls, who through- out the film resist the confinements of their culture, are given the gaze-they become spectators in movie houses-only to witness hauntingly beautiful images of graceful south sea island women spoiled by a sexist and racist voice-of-god commentary.

Although Sachs does not posit any material or transcen- dent victory for women, her film does offer a model of witty, exuberant, sensual and subversive film language that questions and subverts the patriarchal structures of thought and representation that for centuries have impris- oned women. Thus, at the end of the film the blazing house reappears, but now it takes on a new meaning: the fire that bursts forth and collapses the walls of the house becomes a powerful metaphor for the incendiary power of the woman poet/polemicist to destroy from within the oppressive structure of the House of Science.

Marilyn Fabe teaches Film Studies and Women’s Studies At the UniversityofCalifornia-Berkeley. She is The Co-author Against theClock:Career Women Speak on the Choice to Have Children (RandomHouse, 1979).

Review of House of Science in Wide Angle

Wide Angle, Volume 14, Numbers 3 & 4 (July-October 1992).

The House of Science: A Museum of False Facts

Feminist Polemics Through Film Poetry

By Marilyn Fabe

In The House of Science: A Museum of False Facts, Lynne Sachs exposes the edifice of scientific “facts” with which the male-dominated disciplines of science and medicine have constructed an image of what a woman is. Through-out the 30-minute film, Sachs traces the unfortunate inter-face between women and science, a terrain in which men are supposed to have all the knowledge, defining and mapping out women as their territory, while women are alienated from their own bodies.

This synopsis of the film’s thesis doesn’t begin to convey the wit, complexity and visual brilliance with which Sachs approaches her subject. Indeed, I would argue that she achieves in this film what Sergei Eisenstein sought through intellectual montage: “to restore to the intellectual process its fire and passion … to give back to emasculated theoretical formulas the rich exuberance of life-felt forms.” Through associative montage, superimposed collage, and sound in counterpoint to image, she launches an attack on the presumed objectivity of western science, and exposes the limitations of verbal language in expressing “the truth.” Sachs does this by replacing the language of logic and science with a complex film poetry. The House of Science is a passionate feminist film that makes its point through poetry rather than polemics.

Even as Sachs depicts the house of science into which women have been locked, she subtley and subversively dismantles it—or, in a metaphor more appropriate to the film’s denouement, burns it down. The manner in which the first sequence works suggests the structure of the film as a whole. Before the titles appear, Sachs counterpoints found footage of a man in a white jacket—a Doctor with a capital D—escorting a woman into a glass booth. This image is accompanied by a voiceover of a woman describing the cold, perfunctory manner in which she was treated during her pregnancy by her gynecologist. Here the disparate sound and image tracks uncannily mesh, the glass booth becoming a symbol of the sterile House of Science in which women have been enclosed, objectified and observed. At the same time, the voice of the woman reflecting on her pregnancy reminds us that everyone’s original dwelling is the woman’s body. In a flash of recognition an idea bursts forth: because men come from a mysterious house (the womb), they have a compulsive need to put women back into one (the doctor leading the woman into the glass booth). The sadistic implications of this are played out associatively when the same doctor detonates a fuse which causes a model of a house to burst into flames. Sachs adds her own heat (her anger) to this image by tinting the black and white image of the burning house with flashes of orange.

This foregrounding of the filmmaker’s feelings, superimposed in color on the black and white image, resonates suggestively with the pregnant woman’s description of her gynecologist: “He always struck me as short, cold and with glasses and he may not look like that at all.” At issue here is the questioning of any kind of objective reality. Unlike the authoritatian certainty with which men speak throughout the film, this woman acknowledges how feelings filter our perceptions of reality.

Sachs exposes the bidden fooling behind the language of science by quoting one Lombrosso, a 19th century “expert” on criminality in women, who pontificates on the “irrefutable physical signs of a born thief” in a nine-year-old girl. The ignorance, prejudice and insanity of Lombrasso’s words, which appear in subtitles, are rendered even more ridiculous because they are read on the sound track by a female child who mangles the text by stumbling over the pronunciation of the words. On the image track is an exuberant nine-year-old girl in a Batman costume, a super hero in her resistance to the misogynist science of men. The image of the little girl changes to one of a dancing woman, who, unlike the child, is not free but contained in a crudely chalk-drawn frame of a house, reminding us of how adult women lose the liberty of girlhood only to be confined in the constrictive House of Science.

Sachs places frames around men as well, playfully asserting the power of the woman artist to turn the tables. In one instance a man stands before a picture frame lecturing on anatomy. As he discusses the framework of the body, he himself appears in a frame, and the prurience underlying his pompous abstractions is exposed when the picture in the frame within a frame turns into a nude woman.

As the film progresses, Sachs increasingly presents images of women defining themselves. Three adult women, who earlier had dutifully mouthed Lombrasso’s certainty that female thieves and “above all prostitutes” have a cranial capacity inferior to that of “moral women,” begin to speak for themselves. For example, a woman art critic offers insight into why the pubic hair was removed from Renaissance representations of Venuses: “The more the visual image can be disarmed the better the male artist feels.” And the filmmaker’s journal entry expresses the exhilaration and power of a woman with a speculum looking into herself.

Yet Sachs offers no smug sense of victory for women. The latter images in the film, like those at the beginning, are riddled with ambiguity. The woman with the speculum lives in dread of the cancer she might find now that she has the power to examine herself. And little girls, who throughout the film resist the confinements of their culture, arc given the gaze—they become spectators in movie houses—only to witness hauntingly beautiful images of graceful south sea island women spoiled by A sexist and racist voice-of-god commentary.

Although Sachs does not posit any material or transcendent victory for women, her film docs offer a model of witty, exuberant, sensual and subversive film language that questions and subverts the patriarchal structures of thought and representation that for centuries have imprisoned women. Thus, at the end of the film the blazing house reappears, but now it takes on a new meaning: the fire that bursts forth and collapses the walls of the house becomes a powerful metaphor for the incendiary power of the woman poet/polemicist to destroy from within the oppressive structure of the House of Science.

Marilyn Fabe teaches Film Studies and Women’s Studies at the University of California-Berkeley. She is the co-author of Up Against the Clock: Career Women Speak on the Choice to Have Children (Random House, 1979).

THE HOUSE OF SCIENCE: A MUSEUM OF FALSE FACTS is distributed by

Canyon Cinema (415/626-2255).

Film & Doba / THE HOUSE OF SCIENCE Script

Images from Film & Doba 1991, text by Stanislav Ulver.

“In Film a Doba, Stanislav Ulver started publishing texts about animated films in the early eighties. In 1989, he became a member of the editorial staff and four years later the editor-in-chief. During his tenure, Film a Doba was one of the few periodicals that consistently reflected non-fiction, animated and experimental cinematography. In addition to professional articles, Ulver has published countless reviews, festival reports, interviews and translations here. His texts were also published in Illumination , Analogon , ASIFA News and a number of domestic and foreign catalogs.

He worked as a teacher at FAMU, where he taught the history of animated and avant-garde film and led seminars on film aesthetics and media criticism. He was the editor of the anthologies Film and Time: 1962–1970 (1997), Light in Us. Experimental Film (2003) and Animation and the Time 1955–2000 (2004). Editorially prepared the release of the screenplay by Marketa Lazarová (1998). In 1991, his monograph Western Film Avant-Garde was published.

On May 14 2022, film theoretician, columnist, educator and former editor-in-chief of Film and Time Stanislav Ulver passed away. Honor his memory!” –Film a Doba

Website of Filmmaker Lynne Sachs